Let us start first of all with statements - what appeared to concern the police in those first statements?
Let's take these changes in statements that Ms Lean is claiming were so demonstrably different from the first account given to the ones four weeks after this murder had taken place:
Ms Lean claims that "all" of the search parties statements were the same as LM's, that they all stated that the dog had led them to find Jodi Jones.
She uses a handful of small areas of wording to show this to be true:
LM stated that his dog was "standing up at the wall", SK stated that the dog was "standing up at the wall".
LM stated he had to "backtrack" to the V in the wall. SK and JaJ stated they had to "backtrack" to the V in the wall.
All true? - why therefore did the police find these statements to be in contrast with each other - they were after all saying the same thing?
It is worthy to note here that not only was there a reproduction wall built in the court.
The Jury were taken to Roansdyke path to see the locus first hand.
Were the witnesses also taken to this path to go over their statements. - all that effort in the latter would suggest so?
It was dark, almost 11.30pm
Let's take another area of the statements, where JaJ and Jodi's grandmother make reference to LM going over this V. Why?
There is never mention in the statements of AW having to "backtrack", there is good reason for this. IMO
Ms Lean has tied in different areas of statements in an attempt to match them with LM's How do we know this?
Let's expand those first statements just a little further:
LM stated that he had walked some distance past this V break "not even 20yards" (not even 60ft) Fair distance past though.
SK, JaJ's and AW stated that when they "came to" this V break in the wall that LM once again took the decision to look into the woodland.
Note there "once again" LM had already took it upon himself to look into this woodland, he had climbed the wall some distance before the V.
No claimed reactions from the dog here - in fact this part is pretty much diverted away from, from the innocence camp.
This was at the 'Gino' spot. (graffiti) where the wall is much higher, bar a couple of broken stones at the top. LM "shone his torch into the woods" and climbed down again.
When the search party came to the V in the wall SK gives reference to the "dogs head being level with the V" Does this back up and confirm LM's statement? - no it simply does not, why?
Is it the same? - no it is not. Why?
The obvious being that SK states this was at the V - LM up to 60ft past it. Also;
SK's account is by far the accurate one, of what actually happened, that the search party did not go past the V.
It is physically impossible to make reference to the dogs head being level with this V unless actually right beside it. It was dark. SK made it clear with his description, that this was at the V.
"backtrack" - We have already cleared up here as to why LM did not "backtrack" to the V with his dog from where he claimed it reacted.
He simply did not need to backtrack - he was at the V.
Common sense would tell us that there is a whole lot of difference between someone stepping from left to right to actually "backtracking"
From those very first statements - gaping contrast.
SK and JaJ having to backtrack to this V - came after LM was in the woodland, from when he had shouted he had found "something".
That after LM had entered the woodland and turned left they had continued to walk, that they had barely "walked 10ft" when LM shouted out,
it was at this point they both "backtracked to the V"
If anyone has anything at all to counter act this I would be grateful to see it - to date there has been nothing. Bar;
JaJ could not have seen which direction LM turned, "the base of the V is 6ft from the ground" - no it is not.
How? if she continued to walk did she see which direction LM turned - simple, because JaJ and SK continued once LM was over and had started to walk in that direction. The direction of his torch light.
So that total contrast in statements from the first - Remember here also that vital time frame of approx: 10mins.
It was not simply that LM claimed to have walked in the direction his dog had reacted, some 20yards away.
He was in this woodland mere seconds - before shouting out he had found something.
One would need to know this area of woodland like the back of their hand, no deliberation of steps, of searching at all - instant.
But LM did not know this woodland did he? He claimed never to have been in it prior to that night, he claimed that he knew not of the existence of this V until that night - Yet he chose, only him - to look into the woods, which was blocked from view completely by this wall, 8ft high in most parts.
Jodi Jones had been forbidden by her mother to walk this path alone. - But;
LM claimed not to have been worried when she did not turn up - claiming that she was walking this very path alone to meet with him.
Yet, felt the need to introduce the possibility that Jodi may be in the woods. Why?
An introduction that came before the claimed reaction of the dog.
This is the information that we know - from evidence heard, the Crowns case and from Ms Lean - why therefore when there are claims of the search trio being partly responsible for LM's incarceration, by the very act of changing statements is there not far more from Ms Lean?
To simply claim with much retribution - that "all" of the search party agreed with LM, that it was indeed Mia that found Jodi Jones, can she not back this up with an expansion of these very statements - statements from that first instance that grossly differed from LM's?
This, not being able to release "all" of the statements in their entirety is a far cry from taking several words and adding them to others - is it not?
Why not a whole paragraph? - perhaps the simple answer is - they would expose more truth than theory.
It has never been just about the dog finding Jodi Jones - the sequence of events, the timing and most importantly where? are what is needed to back up this claim that the dog did indeed find her. - It is blatantly obvious that they were never there to back it in the first instance. IMO
Approx: 10mins. From LM asking "do you have anything of Jodi's for Mia to scent" (they did not, why would they?) to LM shouting out "I have found something"
This was from near the High School at the top of this path - Approx: 10mins.
Jodi Jones was known to be missing just after her mother texted to LM at 10.40pm
LM offered to search this path at 10.50pm when on the phone to JuJ.
Jodi is reported missing to the police.
LM claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm
LM is on Roansdyke path by 10.59pm when he is again on the phone with JuJ.
At or Just after 11.15pm LM is nearing the top end of the path and sees members of Jodi's family approaching to meet with him.
A conversation is had - LM asks "do you have anything of Jodi's to use for Mia to scent" Again they did not, why would they?
Why would this family have even known LM was going to have his dog?
11.30pm Jodi Jones is found, off the path, behind this wall some 40ft down from the V break. Approx: 10mins
The girls family were looking into the side of the field and undergrowth of the wall - LM looks into the woods?
It is the time frame that really stands out to me - hardly surprising the police were suspicious?
Known to be missing around 10.40pm found by 11.30pm - By LM?
